1. “Handset” is obfuscating legalese to refer to a cell phone in a way intending to distance the meaning of the word from the thing that the old and technologically illiterate people who rule on this use every day.

2. I’m no fan of their strategy, but cell phone providers have claimed for a long time that filling your phone with unremovable bloatware causes the overall price to decrease. They’re argument is most likely that they will have to charge more once the propagators of that bloatware realize that they can no longer force it on people and wedge that as a reason to pay less to carriers.

3. The reality is that cell phones are priced based on what people will buy anyway and carriers pocket is much of the money as they can that third parties pay them for their bloatware. Ultimately because of that this ruling hurts their bottom line, but the above reasoning gives plausible deniability in the face of the law as it is interpreted by old technologically illiterate lawmakers

I think it’s not necessarily a contradiction to hold your pro-choice and anti-death penalty stance, but it’s still a contradiction to hold the pro-life and pro-death penalty stance if your reasoning behind the pro-life stance is that all life is sacred.

I agree that a person’s body autonomy and the state’s power to execute citizens should not overlap, but I still think that giving the “all life is sacred” line to justify pro-life and then being pro-death penalty “because some people deserve to die” amounts to hypocrisy.

Well if you’re so smart, how are they going to track your location otherwise?

I don’t have first-hand experience, but from what I understand the way they make money off of those tablet screens they put in cars is by licensing proprietary software that other companies want you to have no choice but to use. That’s why models with no screens are disappearing from the major car makers

You’d think it would be a win, but honestly Trump is a clown. More “centrists” who detest Trump might rally around someone like DeSantis, that’s what I’m afraid of.

I like the “formally” vs “formerly” suggesting Elon is never going to get away from Twitter in favor of X

Hey man, nice tittles

My mind is blown. This is very well written. Thank you

The concept that the internet doesn’t cost money harkens back to the days when the only people who were hosting content were community driven enthusiasts. The fact that “shit costs money” is even an argument here is a symptom of the greater problem that corporatism has invaded a community space for profit.

I guess you can argue that corporatism has made the internet more accessible, to a degree. Really corporatism has only increased the exposure of a handful of social media sites. But that doesn’t really change what their goal is, which is to squeeze money out of people trying to socialize.

Now that they have invaded what was once a space for enthusiasts and tech minds, made it into a people trap and scape money off the backend with metadata, the idea that they’re now asking people directly for money that they can no longer make due to their government protecting them is grotesque and an absurd direction for services like these to go in.

Don’t pretend like Facebook, youtube, et al don’t make enough money hand over foot to just to cover their operating costs already. They’re asking for money for profit. Billion dollar companies are now asking directly for profit because they can’t extort a newly formed protection.

I suppose selling a better experience is one thing. There’s legitimacy in that. Although selling a reprieve from a bad experience that you created (youtube) is a bit like creating a problem to sell the solution, which is still fucked.

Foot the bill directly

Too real. Facebook is currently attempting this “feature” in the EU